Social Justice Group Claims People Will “Suffer Irreparable Harm” if They Can’t Buy Sweets with SNAP
Over the past year, the USDA has approved waivers from 22 different states to exclude soda and other sweetened beverages from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Some also exclude candy and prepared desserts. Iowa’s law is the most restrictive, excluding fruit leather, sweetened baking chocolate, sweetened fruits and nuts, candy-coated fruit, and caramel corn.
The first five states—Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia—started implementing this restriction in January. Others will follow later this year. Customers in these states who use SNAP can still buy the excluded products—just not with government funding.
As always happens when someone tries to restrict sugar consumption, there’s been pushback. On March 11, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice—a left-leaning social justice agency who works to expand access to food stamps and protect the rights of low-income people—filed a lawsuit against the USDA because of the SNAP waivers.
The allegations in the lawsuit are serious. By not letting people use SNAP to buy soda, NCLEJ claims that the USDA is causing “irreparable harm” by depriving them “of the food they need to maintain their health and employment, and in some cases, to survive.” They claim that “individuals with chronic illnesses are losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs.”
Several of the plaintiffs in this case claim that they can’t manage their diabetes without sugary beverages. Another plaintiff from Tennessee (which excludes processed foods and beverages that list sugar or corn syrup as the first ingredient) claims that her chronically ill daughter “will go hungry and risk a medical crisis” if she can’t eat these high-sugar foods.
These claims are not supported by medical research. One recent review recommends reducing consumption of sweetened beverages to manage diabetes. Another review links high-sugar processed foods to chronic disease and inflammation. Harvard Health says that too much sugar is “one of the greatest threats to cardiovascular disease,” and Johns Hopkins lists sugar consumption as a risk factor for obesity and heart disease.
A more valid complaint is that the restrictions in some states are confusing. Stores have to educate their employees on how to determine if an item is eligible or not. That will take some training and a bit of an adjustment period, but it hardly seems like something worth suing over.
Eco-farmers may be wondering what’s behind this. Are the big soda and candy manufacturers funding this lawsuit? If so, they’re being very secretive about it. Most of the funding for NCLEJ comes from private foundations established by wealthy, philanthropic families—who might be surprised to learn that their money is being used to defend soda.
Claiming that unhealthy food is essential for survival is an unusual tactic for social justice advocates, who have been working for years to expand healthy food access in low-income communities. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
